Crime Technology: Department of Defense Assistance to State and Local Law
Enforcement Agencies (Letter Report, 10/12/1999, GAO/GGD-00-14).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the crime technology
assistance provided by the Department of Defense (DOD) to state and
local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years (FY) 1996 through
1998, focusing on: (1) grants or other types of direct federal funding;
(2) access to support services and systems, such as counterdrug or other
intelligence centers; and (3) in-kind transfers of equipment or other
assets.
GAO noted that: (1) DOD said it provided no crime technology-related
grants to state and local law enforcement agencies during FY 1996
through FY 1998; (2) although each state's National Guard received funds
for its counterdrug program, these funds did not meet GAO's definition
of crime technology assistance, with one exception; (3) GAO also did not
find any other type of direct funding; (4) identifiable crime technology
assistance provided by DOD to state and local law enforcement agencies
during FY 1996 through FY 1998 totalled an estimated $125.9 million; (5)
of this amount, about $95.9 million involved in-kind transfers,
representing about 76 percent of the total; (6) although not directly
intended for state and local law enforcement agencies, some of DOD's
research and development efforts in recent years have had spin-off
benefits for these agencies--particularly DOD's efforts to develop
technologies for federal use in detecting explosives and narcotics; (7)
for example, proven technologies have resulted in crime-fighting
products--such as bomb detection equipment--becoming commercially
available for purchase by all levels of law enforcement; and (8) GAO did
not attempt to identify all relevant examples nor to quantify the costs
associated with specific products because: (a) DOD's research and
development efforts primarily and directly support federal agency needs;
and (b) the acquisition of any resulting commercially available products
generally is dependent on state and local law enforcement agencies' own
budgets.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-00-14
TITLE: Crime Technology: Department of Defense Assistance to
State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
DATE: 10/12/1999
SUBJECT: Technology transfer
Law enforcement agencies
Federal grants
Federal aid for criminal justice
Federal/state relations
Research and development
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** <[email protected]> **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to the Honorable Mike DeWine
U.S. Senate
October 1999
GAO/GGD-00-14
CRIME TECHNOLOGY
Department of Defense Assistance
to State and Local
Law Enforcement Agencies
Ordering Information
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. G100
(182071)
Contents
Page 141GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law
Enforcement Agencies
Letter 1
Appendix I 16
Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Objectives 16
Definition of "Crime Technology 16
Assistance"
Overview of Scope and Methodology 16
Scope and Methodology Regarding Grants 18
or Other Direct Funding
Scope and Methodology Regarding 19
Support Services and Systems
Scope and Methodology Regarding In- 22
Kind Transfers
Scope and Methodology Regarding 22
Research and Development
Data Accuracy and Reliability 23
Appendix II 24
GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
Tables Table 1: Estimated DOD Funding for 2
Crime Technology Assistance, Fiscal
Years 1996 Through 1998
Table 2: DOD Support Services and 5
Systems Provided to State and Local
Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal
Years 1996 Through 1998
Table 3: DOD In-Kind Transfers 9
Provided to State and Local Law
Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years
1996 Through 1998
Table I.1: Number of Cases Closed by 21
Military Branch Investigative
Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through
1998
B-283095
Page 9GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Lo
cal Law Enforcement Agencies
B-283095
October 12, 1999
The Honorable Mike DeWine
United States Senate
Dear Senator DeWine:
This report responds to your request for
information about crime technology assistance1
provided by the Department of Defense (DOD) to
state and local law enforcement agencies during
fiscal years 1996 through 1998.2 As agreed, we
categorized the assistance into the following
three categories: (1) grants or other types of
direct federal funding; (2) access to support
services and systems, such as counterdrug or other
intelligence centers; and (3) in-kind transfers of
equipment or other assets. Also, to provide
perspective, we identified several relevant DOD
research and development efforts that may have
indirectly benefited state and local law
enforcement agencies.
Results in Brief
Regarding the first category, DOD said it
provided no crime technology-related grants to
state and local law enforcement agencies during
fiscal years 1996 through 1998. Although each
state's National Guard received funds for its
counterdrug program, these funds did not meet our
definition of crime technology assistance, with
one exception.3 We also did not find any other
type of direct funding.
In the other two categories, identifiable
crime technology assistance provided by DOD to
state and local law enforcement agencies during
fiscal years 1996 through 1998 totaled an
estimated $125.9 million, as table 1 shows. Of
this amount, about $95.9 million involved in-kind
transfers, representing about 76 percent of the
total.
Table 1: Estimated DOD Funding for Crime
Technology Assistance, Fiscal Years 1996 Through
1998
Dollars in thousands
Category of assistance Amount
Support services and $29,985.5
systems
In-kind transfers 95,877.2
Total $125,862.7
Source: GAO summary of data provided by DOD
components.
Although not directly intended for state and local
law enforcement agencies, some of DOD's research
and development efforts in recent years have had
spin-off benefits for these agencies-particularly
DOD's efforts to develop technologies for federal
use in detecting explosives and narcotics. For
example, proven technologies have resulted in
crime-fighting products--such as bomb detection
equipment-becoming commercially available for
purchase by all levels of law enforcement. We did
not attempt to identify all relevant examples nor
to quantify the costs associated with specific
products because (1) DOD's research and
development efforts primarily and directly support
federal agency needs and (2) the acquisition of
any resulting commercially available products
generally is dependent on state and local law
enforcement agencies' own budgets.
Background
Under long-standing law, the so-called Posse
Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 U.S.C. 1385) prohibits
the use of the Departments of the Army or the Air
Force to enforce the nation's civilian laws except
where specifically authorized by the Constitution
or Congress. While the language of section 1385
lists only the Army and the Air Force, DOD has
made the provisions of section 1385 applicable to
the Department of the Navy and the U.S. Marine
Corps through a DOD directive (DOD Directive
5525.5, Jan. 15, 1986).
Congress has enacted various pieces of
legislation authorizing a military role in
supporting civilian law enforcement agencies. For
example, in the Department of Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1982 (P.L. 97-
86), Congress authorizes the Secretary of Defense
to provide certain assistance-type activities for
civilian law enforcement activities. This
legislation also provided, however, that such U.S.
military assistance does not include or permit
participation in a search, seizure, arrest, or
other similar activity, unless participation in
such activity is otherwise authorized by law.
Beginning in the early 1980s, Congress
authorized an expanded military role in supporting
domestic drug enforcement efforts.4 As part of the
national counterdrug effort, for example, the U.S.
military provides federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies with a wide range of
services, such as air and ground transportation,
communications, intelligence, and technology
support. DOD counterdrug intelligence support is
provided by Joint Task Force Six, which is based
at Fort Bliss (El Paso, TX). This component
coordinates operational intelligence in direct
support of drug law enforcement agencies.5
Moreover, under congressional authorization
that was initially provided in 1989 (32 U.S.C.
112), DOD may provide funds annually to state
governors who submit plans specifying how the
respective state's National Guard is to be used to
support drug interdiction and counterdrug
activities. Such operations are conducted under
the command and control of the state governor
rather than the U.S. military. Also, federal,
state, and local law enforcement personnel may
receive counterdrug training at schools managed by
the National Guard in California, Florida, and
Mississippi.
In 1989, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Defense to transfer to federal and state agencies
excess DOD personal property suitable for use in
counterdrug activities, without cost to the
recipient agency. In 1996, Congress authorized
such transfers of excess DOD personal property
suitable for use in law enforcement generally and
not just specifically for counterdrug efforts.
This Law Enforcement Support Program6 is managed
by the Defense Logistics Agency.
Military law enforcement agencies are major
consumers of forensic laboratory services.7 The
Army operates the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation
Laboratory (Fort Gillem, GA), which provides
forensic support regarding questioned documents,
trace evidence, firearms and tool marks,
fingerprints, imaging and technical services, drug
chemistry, and serology. The Navy operates two
limited-service forensic laboratories, which are
referred to as Naval Criminal Investigative
Service Regional Forensic Laboratories (Norfolk,
VA, and San Diego, CA).8 Both Navy laboratories
provide forensic support regarding latent prints,
drug chemistry, arson, and questioned documents.
The Air Force is the executive agent of the DOD
Computer Forensics Laboratory (Linthicum, MD),
which processes digital and analog evidence for
DOD counterintelligence operations and programs as
well as fraud and other criminal investigations.
Generally, with the exception of participating
with state or local law enforcement agencies in
cases with a military interest, the military
laboratories do not provide support to these
agencies.9
Grants or Other Direct Federal Funding
In response to our inquiries, officials at each of
the DOD components we contacted told us that they
did not provide grants for any purposes, including
crime technology-related assistance, to state and
local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years
1996 through 1998. Moreover, we found no
indications of crime technology-related grant
assistance provided by DOD during our review of
various DOD authorization, appropriations, and
budget documents.
According to the General Services Administration's
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,10 DOD can
provide grants for a variety of purposes to some
non-law enforcement agencies. For example, some
DOD grants may assist state and local agencies in
working with the Army Corps of Engineers to
control and eradicate nuisance vegetation in
rivers and harbors.
DOD direct funding-$563.3 million total
appropriations for fiscal years 1996 through
1998-was provided for the National Guard Bureau's
counterdrug program, which covers the following
six mission areas: (1) program management, (2)
technical support, (3) general support, (4)
counterdrug-related training, (5)
reconnaissance/observation, and (6) demand
reduction support. However, we determined that,
with one exception, these mission areas did not
involve activities that met our definition of
crime technology assistance. The one exception
involved courses at two of the National Guard's
three counterdrug training locations in operation
during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. We
considered these courses to be a "support
service," and they are discussed in the following
section.
Support Services and Systems
Regarding support services and systems, DOD's
crime technology assistance to state and local law
enforcement totaled an estimated $30 million for
fiscal years 1996 through 1998. As table 2 shows,
this assistance was provided by various DOD
components-the Defense Security Service, the DOD
Computer Forensics Laboratory, the Intelligence
Systems Support Office, Joint Task Force Six, the
military branch investigative agencies, National
Guard Bureau counterdrug training schools, and the
U.S. Army Military Police School. More details
about the assistance provided by each of these
components are presented in respective sections
following table 2.
Table 2: DOD Support Services and Systems
Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement
Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998
Obligations in thousands of
dollars
Component and assistance 1996 1997 1998 Total
Defense Security Service:
Defense Clearance and $1.8 $2.4 $1.0 $5.2
Investigations Index
DOD Computer Forensics N/A N/A 14.0 14.0
Laboratorya
Intelligence Systems Support
Office:
Gulf States Initiative 6,100.0 8,900.0 13,100.0 28,100.0
Joint Task Force Six:
Communications assessment 16.3 0.0 0.0 16.3
Intelligence architecture 0.0 15.0 17.5 32.5
assessment
Military branch investigative
agencies:
Army Criminal Investigation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Commandb
Air Force Office of Special 0.0 8.4 0.0 8.4
Investigations
Naval Criminal Investigative
Service:
Forensic analyses 63.0 9.0 34.0 106.0
Technical trainingc 0.0 0.4 2.1 2.5
Marine Corps Criminal N/A N/A N/A N/A
Investigation Divisiond
National Guard Bureau:
Counterdrug training schoolse 62.1 72.8 145.8 280.7
Other training:
U.S. Army Military Police 579.1 385.8 455.0 1,419.9
School
Total $6,822.3 $9,393.8 $13,769. $29,985.
4 5
Legend: N/A = Not applicable.
Note: Dollar amounts are estimated and have been
rounded to the nearest thousand.
aThe laboratory became operational in July 1998.
Thus, the funding figure shown for 1998 covers 3
months (July through Sept.).
bIn joint investigations with state and local law
enforcement agencies, the Army may conduct
forensic analyses. However, because the Army has
an independent interest in such investigations, it
does not categorize its participation in these
investigations as providing assistance to state
and local law enforcement agencies. Thus, the Army
did not provide us any prorated funding data for
these investigations.
cThe Naval Criminal Investigative Service was
unable to provide estimated funding data by fiscal
years. Therefore, the funding data are by calendar
year.
dThe Marine Corps does not have a forensics
laboratory. Rather, for its forensic analysis
needs, the Corps relies on other military or state
laboratories.
eCrime technology-related courses were provided at
two of the National Guard Bureau's three
counterdrug training schools. According to DOD,
National Guard Bureau counterdrug program funding
is provided by the Office of Drug Enforcement
Policy and Support.
Source: GAO summary of data provided by DOD
components.
Defense Security Service
As table 2 shows, the Defense Security Service
estimated that its assistance to state and local
law enforcement totaled approximately $5,200
during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. This total
represents responses to 59 requests-with estimated
assistance costs ranging from $75 to $100 per
request (or an average of $87.50 per request)-for
information from the Defense Clearance and
Investigations Index.11
A single, automated central repository, the
Defense Clearance and Investigations Index,
contains information on (1) the personnel security
determinations made by DOD adjudicative
authorities and (2) investigations conducted by
DOD investigative agencies. This database consists
of an index of personal names and impersonal
titles that appear as subjects, co-subjects,
victims, or cross-referenced incidental subjects
in investigative documents maintained by DOD
criminal, counterintelligence, fraud, and
personnel security investigative activities. For
example, state and local law enforcement agencies
may request and receive completed Defense Security
Service investigations in support of criminal
investigations or adverse personnel actions.
DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory
The DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory (Linthicum,
MD) became operational in July 1998. The
laboratory is responsible for processing,
analyzing, and performing diagnoses of computer-
based evidence involving counterintelligence
operations and programs as well as fraud and other
criminal cases. According to DOD officials,
forensic analyses can be provided to state and
local law enforcement when there is a military
interest or, in certain other instances, when
specific criteria are met. In the last 3 months of
fiscal year 1998 (July through Sept.), according
to DOD officials, the laboratory performed 84
forensic analyses, 2 of which were for law
enforcement officials in the states of North
Carolina and Tennessee, respectively. As table 2
shows, DOD estimated that its costs (which were
based on prorated staff hours) in providing
forensic assistance to the states were $14,000 (or
$7,000 per analysis).
Intelligence Systems Support Office
For fiscal years 1996 through 1998, DOD obligated
$28.1 million for the Gulf States Initiative.
Using law enforcement intelligence software, the
Gulf States Initiative is an interconnected
communications system among the states of Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Included in
this system are (1) specialized software for the
analysis of counterdrug intelligence information,
(2) a secure and reliable communications network,
and (3) standardized tools to analyze and report
counterdrug intelligence information. Each state
operates a drug intelligence center (located in
the capital city) that is connected to the hubs in
other states. This system allows states to process
and analyze intelligence information.
Joint Task Force Six
At the request of a domestic law enforcement
agency, DOD's Joint Task Force Six coordinates
operational, technological, intelligence, and
training support for counterdrug efforts within
the continental United States. For fiscal years
1996 through 1998, Joint Task Force Six officials
estimated that the costs of crime technology
assistance provided by this DOD component to state
and local law enforcement totaled $48,800. As
table 2 shows, this assistance consisted of two
types-communications assessments ($16,300) and
intelligence architecture assessments ($32,500).
In providing such assistance, military personnel
essentially acted as technical consultants in
evaluating state or local agencies' (1) existing
communications systems, including their locations
and the procedures for using them, and/or (2)
intelligence organizations, functions, and
systems.
Military Branch Investigative Agencies
The military branch investigative agencies
generally do not unilaterally provide assistance
to state and local law enforcement. However, if
there is a military interest, a military
investigative agency may jointly conduct an
investigation with state or local authorities.
(See table I.1 in app. I.) During such
collaborative efforts, the Army, Air Force, and
Navy may provide forensic support in areas
involving, for example, fingerprints, drug
chemistry, and questioned documents.
The cost data presented for the military branch
investigative agencies in table 2 are the costs
associated with (1) forensic analyses involving
joint or collaborative cases and (2) other
technology-related assistance, such as technical
training. For example:
ú In 1997, the Air Force enhanced the quality
of an audiotape used as evidence for a homicide
investigation for Prince George's County, MD. The
Air Force estimated its costs to be $8,400 for
this assistance.
ú In addition to the forensic analyses
conducted during fiscal years 1996 through 1998,
the Navy also provided technical training to 386
state and local law enforcement personnel. Such
training covered various aspects of forensic
technology, such as conducting DNA analyses and
using computer databases.
Although it does not have a forensic laboratory,
the Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division
provided state and local law enforcement agencies
with other types of assistance, such as the use of
dog teams to detect explosives. However, we
determined that these activities did not meet our
definition of crime technology assistance.
National Guard Bureau
At two of its three counterdrug training locations
in operation during fiscal years 1996 through
1998, the National Guard Bureau provided state and
local law enforcement with courses that met our
definition of crime technology assistance.
According to National Guard Bureau officials, the
two locations and the relevant courses (with a
prorated estimated funding total of about $281,000
for the 3 fiscal years) are as follows:
ú Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force
Training (St. Petersburg, FL): At this training
location, the relevant course covered the use of
technical equipment to intercept secure
communications. This course accounted for about
$60,000, or about 21 percent of the total $281,000
funding.
ú Regional Counterdrug Training Academy
(Meridian, MS): At this location, National Guard
Bureau officials identified the following three
relevant courses: (1) Basic Technical
Service/Video Surveillance Operations, (2)
Counterdrug Thermal Imagery Systems, and (3)
Investigative Video Operations. These courses
accounted for about $221,000, or the remaining 79
percent of the $281,000 funding total.
U.S. Army Military Police School
The U.S. Army Military Police School (Fort Leonard
Wood, MO) provided counterdrug training to state
and local law enforcement agencies. Eight courses
were conducted that focused on drug enforcement
training for non-DOD students, including state and
local law enforcement personnel. In response to
our inquiry, DOD officials indicated that two of
these courses-(1) Counterdrug Investigations and
(2) Basic Analytical Investigative Techniques-fit
our definition of crime technology assistance. For
example, the Counterdrug Investigations course
covered such topics as (1) criminal intelligence,
(2) surveillance operations, and (3) technical
surveillance equipment (audio/video). The Basic
Analytical Investigative Techniques course trained
law enforcement personnel how to maintain an
automated criminal intelligence system under
multijurisdictional narcotics scenarios. This
course also covered such topics as (1) the
analytical process, (2) sources of information,
and (3) flowcharting.
Regarding these 2 courses, Military Police School
officials told us that training was provided to
2,121 state and local law enforcement personnel
during fiscal years 1996 through 1998, at an
estimated cost of over $1.4 million.
In-Kind Transfer Programs
During fiscal years 1996 through 1998, DOD's in-
kind assistance to state and local law enforcement
totaled about $95.9 million. As table 3 shows,
this category of assistance was provided by two
DOD components-the Defense Information Systems
Agency (about $24 million in the procurement and
transfer of new equipment) and the Defense
Logistics Agency (about $72.0 million in the
transfer of surplus equipment). More details about
the in-kind assistance provided by each of these
two components are presented in respective
sections following table 3.
Table 3: DOD In-Kind Transfers Provided to State
and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years
1996 Through 1998
Obligations in thousands of dollars
Component and assistance 1996 1997 1998 Total
Defense Information Systems Agency:
Regional Police Information Systema $0.0 $0.0 $3,000.0 $3,000.
0
Southwest Border States Anti-Drug 7,460.0 9,457.0 4,000.0 20,917.
Information Systemb 0
Subtotal $7,460.0 $9,457.0 $7,000.0 $23,917
.0
Defense Logistics Agency:
Alarm, signal, and security 56.9 54.9 166.3 278.1
detection equipment
Automated data processing units, 6,218.4 10,824.5 12,492.6 29,535.
equipment, components, 5
software, and control systemsc
Chemical analysis instruments 109.9 41.8 17.4 169.1
Communications security equipment 37.6 30.7 25.8 94.1
and components
Cryptologic equipment and components 23.9 0.0 0.0 23.9
Night vision equipment (emitted and 7,051.9 3,199.4 6,648.8 16,900.
reflected radiation) 1
Radar equipment (except airborne) 1,151.7 177.8 68.8 1,398.3
Radio and television communication 7,738.2 5,730.3 6,698.4 20,166.
equipment (except airborne) 9
Stimulated coherent radiation 62.6 1.8 0.0 64.4
devices, components, and
accessories
Underwater sound equipment 2.6 0.6 52.2 55.4
Video recording and reproducing 388.5 600.4 896.5 1,885.4
equipment
Visible and invisible light 702.9 339.0 347.1 1,389.0
communication equipment
Subtotal $23,545.1 $21,001. $27,413. $71,960
2 9 .2
Total $31,005.1 $30,458. $34,413. $95,877
2 9 .2
Note: Dollars were rounded to the nearest
thousand.
aThis system was procured by DOD and given to the
states in fiscal year 1998.
bAccording to DOD officials, during fiscal years
1996 and 1997, equipment was procured and given to
the states, although the legal transfer of the
equipment from DOD to the states did not occur
until September 1997. For fiscal year 1998, the
officials explained that equipment was procured
and given to the states; but, as of August 1999,
DOD had not legally transferred ownership of the
equipment to the states.
cThis line item consists of nine separate federal
supply classes. For table presentation purposes,
we combined the nine supply classes into one line
item.
Source: GAO summary of data provided by DOD
components.
Defense Information Systems Agency
The in-kind assistance (about $24 million)
provided by the Defense Information Systems Agency
consisted of the procurement and transfer of
equipment for the following information-sharing or
communications systems:
ú Regional Police Information System ($3
million): Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas use this
system, which (1) provides automated information
capabilities for detecting and monitoring illegal
drug activities within each state's jurisdiction
and (2) facilitates the sharing of both strategic
and tactical intelligence among participating
agencies.
ú The Southwest Border States Anti-Drug
Information System (about $21 million): This is a
secure law enforcement counterdrug information-
sharing system that connects intelligence
databases of four southwest border states
(Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas); the
three Regional Information Sharing Systems in that
area; and the El Paso Intelligence Center. This
system provides for secure E-mail transmissions
and includes a preestablished query system. The
system allows all participants to query the
databases of all other participants and has an
administrative Web site server that offers key
electronic services, such as providing agency
contact information and system usage statistics.
Defense Logistics Agency
Through its Law Enforcement Support Program, the
Defense Logistics Agency provided about $72.0
million of crime technology-related, in-kind
assistance to state and local law enforcement
during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. As table 3
shows, most of this assistance consisted of the
following three types of equipment or assets:
ú Automated data processing units, equipment,
components, software, and control systems ($29.5
million);
ú Radio and television equipment ($20.2
million); and
ú Night vision equipment ($16.9 million).
Collectively, these three categories accounted for
$66.6 million or about 93 percent of the total
crime technology-related, in-kind assistance
(about $72.0 million) provided to state and local
law enforcement by the Defense Logistics Agency
during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.
Other Transfers
Indirect Assistance May Result From DOD Research
and Development Efforts
In its counterterrorism and counterdrug efforts,
the federal government has invested considerable
funds in recent years to develop technologies for
detecting explosives and narcotics. For example,
in 1996, we reported that DOD had spent over $240
million since 1991 to develop nonintrusive cargo
inspection systems and counterdrug technologies
for the Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, and other federal agencies.12
Although not directly intended for state and local
law enforcement agencies, some of DOD's research
and development efforts have had spin-off benefits
for these agencies. That is, proven technologies
have resulted in crime-fighting products' becoming
commercially available for purchase by all levels
of law enforcement. In citing two examples, DOD
officials commented basically as follows:
ú A "percussion actuated neutralization
disruptor"-funded by DOD's Office of Special
Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict-can be used
to disarm or neutralize pipebombs. Since becoming
commercially available, this device has widespread
applicability in all states and municipalities.
ú A "temporal analysis system" has been
developed under DOD's Counterdrug Technology
Development Program Office. This computer-based
system, which analyzes time-series and other event-
related data, allows law enforcement to predict a
criminal's activities and movements.
The DOD officials further commented that, while
these items first became commercially available
some time during fiscal years 1996 through 1998,
the research and development funds associated with
the items were obligated in years before 1996.
We did not attempt to identify all relevant
examples nor to quantify the costs associated with
specific products because DOD's research and
development efforts primarily and directly support
federal agency needs rather than those of state
and local law enforcement. Also, (1) any spin-off
benefits to state and local law enforcement may
not occur until years after federal research and
development funds are expended and (2) the
acquisition of commercially available products
generally is dependent on these agencies' own
budgets.
Scope and Methodology
To identify relevant crime technology
assistance programs, we reviewed, among other
sources, the General Services Administration's
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Also, to
identify funding amounts, we contacted cognizant
DOD officials and reviewed budget and other
applicable documents provided by DOD components.
We did not independently verify the accuracy or
reliability of the components' funding data.
However, to obtain an indication of the overall
quality of these data, we contacted DOD officials
to clarify the funding data when needed. Appendix
I presents more details about our objectives,
scope, and methodology.
We performed our work from May 1999 to
September 1999 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
On September 14, 1999, we provided DOD with a
draft of this report for comment. On September 23,
1999, DOD's Office of the Inspector General orally
informed us that the draft report had been
reviewed by officials in relevant DOD components,
and that these officials agreed with the
information presented and had no comments.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly
announce the contents of this report earlier, we
plan no further distribution until 30 days after
the date of this report. We are sending copies of
this report to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman,
and Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority
Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary;
Representative Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, and
Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority
Member, House Committee on the Judiciary; the
Honorable William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense;
and the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of
Management and Budget. Copies will also be made
available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this
report, please contact me on (202) 512-8777 or
Danny R. Burton on (214) 777-5700. Key
contributors to this assignment are acknowledged
in appendix II.
Sincerely yours,
Richard M. Stana
Associate Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
_______________________________
1 In developing the information in this report, we
defined "crime technology assistance" as any
technology-related assistance provided to state
and local law enforcement agencies, including
those of Indian tribes, for establishing and/or
improving (1) criminal justice history and/or
information systems and specialized support
services or (2) the availability of and
capabilities to access such services and systems
related to identification, information,
communications, and forensics. (See app. I.)
2 At your request, we previously reported on crime
technology assistance to state and local law
enforcement agencies provided by the Departments
of Justice and the Treasury and the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, Crime Technology:
Federal Assistance to State and Local Law
Enforcement (GAO/GGD-99-101, June 7, 1999).
3 The one exception involved courses at two of the
National Guard's three counterdrug training
locations. We considered these courses to be a
"support service," and we included the relevant
funding in that category.
4 See, Nina M. Serafino, Congressional Research
Service, U.S. Military Participation in Southwest
Border Drug Control: Questions and Answers (CRS 98-
767F), updated September 17, 1998.
5 Drug Control: An Overview of U.S. Counterdrug
Intelligence Activities (GAO/NSIAD-98-142, June
25, 1998).
6 This program is referred to as the 1033 program
named after section 1033 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997.
7 Forensic science refers to the systematic
application of scientific techniques and methods
that are based on academic disciplines, such as
chemistry, physics, medicine, anthropology, and
toxicology.
8 The Marine Corps does not operate a forensic
laboratory. Rather, the Marine Corps mainly uses
the Navy and Army laboratories. The Air Force uses
Army; Navy; and other federal, state, or local
laboratories for forensic analyses that are not
computer-related.
9 DOD, Office of the Inspector General, Criminal
Investigative Policy & Oversight: Evaluation of
the Department of Defense Forensic Laboratories
(Report Number 9850008X), September 16, 1998.
10 Published annually, the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance is a reference source of
federal programs, projects, services, and
activities that provides assistance to a variety
of potential beneficiaries, including states and
localities. For purposes of our review, we
consulted the 1996, 1997, and 1998 editions.
11According to a Defense Security Service official,
these costs do not include self-help assistance
(i.e., instances whereby state and local agencies
directly access the database through the
Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network). We accounted for this
assistance in our earlier report, GAO/GGD-99-101,
which discussed assistance provided by the
Departments of Justice and the Treasury and the
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
12 Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: Threats and
Roles of Explosives and Narcotics Detection
Technology (GAO/NSIAD/RCED-96-76BR, Mar. 27,
1996).
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 23GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and L
ocal Law Enforcement Agencies
Objectives
Senator Mike DeWine requested that we identify
crime technology assistance provided by the
Department of Defense (DOD) to state and local law
enforcement agencies. Specifically, for fiscal
years 1996 through 1998, Senator DeWine requested
that we identify the types and amounts of such
assistance. As agreed, we categorized the
assistance into the following three categories:
(1) grants or other types of direct federal
funding; (2) access to support services and
systems, such as counterdrug or other intelligence
centers; and (3) in-kind transfers of equipment or
other assets. Also, to provide a supplemental
perspective, we identified several relevant DOD
research and development efforts that may have
indirectly benefited state and local law
enforcement agencies.
Definition of "Crime Technology Assistance"
As we discussed in our previous report covering
assistance provided by the Departments of Justice
and the Treasury and the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, there is no commonly accepted
definition of "crime technology assistance."1
Thus, for our previous report and for this report,
we developed our own definition by reviewing (1) a
then pending bill (S. 2022), which has since been
enacted into law,2 related to crime technology
assistance introduced by Senator DeWine during the
second session of the 105th Congress, and its
legislative history; (2) Senator DeWine's request
letter and subsequent discussions with his office;
(3) the General Services Administration's Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance, which is a
reference source of federal assistance programs,
including crime control programs; and (4)
Congressional Research Service reports on federal
crime control assistance.
Accordingly, we defined crime technology
assistance as "any technology-related assistance
provided to state and local law enforcement
agencies, including those of Indian tribes, for
establishing and/or improving (1) criminal justice
history and/or information systems and specialized
support services or (2) the availability of and
capabilities to access such services and systems
related to identification, information,
communications, and forensics." We used this
definition in working with DOD officials to
identify and quantify relevant assistance provided
by DOD to state and local law enforcement
agencies.
Overview of Scope and Methodology
To obtain an overview of the potentially relevant
types and amounts of crime technology assistance
provided by DOD to state and local law
enforcement, we reviewed documentary materials,
such as the General Services Administration's
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, DOD
directives, and various fiscal year authorization
and appropriations laws. Also, we reviewed the
U.S. Government Manual and worked closely with DOD
officials to identify the DOD components that were
most likely to have provided such assistance
during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. In so
doing, we identified and contacted the following
DOD components:
Office of the Secretary of Defense
ú Counterdrug Technology Development Program
Office
ú Intelligence Systems Support Office
ú Office of the Department of Defense
Coordinator for Drug Enforcement Policy and
Support
ú Office of Reserve Affairs
ú Office of Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict
Defense Agencies
ú Defense Information Systems Agency
ú Defense Intelligence Agency
ú Defense Logistics Agency
ú Defense Security Service
ú National Imagery & Mapping Agency
ú National Security Agency
Department of the Army
ú Army Criminal Investigation Command
Department of the Air Force
ú Air Force Office of Special Investigations
ú Air Force Security Service
ú DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory
Department of the Navy
ú Naval Criminal Investigative Service
ú Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division
Joint Task Force Six
ú J-5 Plans
National Guard Bureau
ú Counterdrug Directorate
U.S. Army Military Police School
ú Directorate of Training
In contacting each of these DOD components, we
interviewed responsible officials and reviewed
relevant information, including organizational and
mission descriptions. In addition, at each
component contacted, we discussed our definition
of "crime technology assistance" in relation to
the range of possible examples applicable to the
respective component.
Moreover, to further verify that we had identified
the DOD components that most likely provided crime
technology assistance to state and local law
enforcement, we submitted a letter to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Drug
Enforcement Policy and Support. In our letter, we
included a list of the DOD components contacted,
and we requested that the Office for Drug
Enforcement Policy and Support review the list for
completeness. In responding, the Special
Assistant for Intelligence and Technology
commented that the list was extensive, and he was
not aware of any other relevant DOD components or
offices.
The following sections give more details about the
scope and methodology of our work regarding each
of the three assistance categories-grants or other
types of direct federal funding, support services
and systems, and in-kind transfers-and about
indirect assistance resulting from DOD's research
and development projects.
Scope and Methodology Regarding Grants or Other
Direct Funding
In contacting each DOD component, we asked whether
any grants or other types of direct federal
funding were provided to state and local law
enforcement agencies for crime technology
purposes. According to responsible officials, DOD
did not provide grants or other types of direct
federal funding involving crime technology
assistance. To corroborate this information, we
reviewed the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance to identify any grants available from
DOD. We determined that, of the available DOD
grants, none met our definition of crime
technology assistance.
Other DOD direct funding we identified involved
funds to support the National Guard Bureau's
counterdrug program. However, with one exception,3
this funding did not meet our definition of crime
technology assistance. Under 32 U.S.C. 112, this
funding is provided to cover pay and allowances,
clothing, operation and maintenance of equipment
and facilities, and other related expenses of
National Guard personnel engaged in counterdrug
activities. The amount of funding available to
each state's National Guard is based on a
counterdrug plan approved by the respective
state's governor. Each plan is to identify
counterdrug missions that the state's National
Guard will undertake during a given year.
Scope and Methodology Regarding Support Services
and Systems
In interviewing DOD officials and reviewing
applicable documents, we determined that the
following DOD components had support services and
systems that provided crime technology assistance
to state and local law enforcement during fiscal
years 1996 through 1998: the Defense Security
Service, the DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory,
the Intelligence Systems Support Office, Joint
Task Force Six, the military branch investigative
agencies, National Guard Bureau counterdrug
training schools, and the U.S. Army Military
Police School.
Defense Security Service
To determine the amount of assistance that the
Defense Security Service provided to state and
local law enforcement agencies through the Defense
Clearance and Investigations Index, we asked for
funding data related to the total number of
responses made to these agencies' requests for
information. However, because the Defense
Security Service does not charge fees or track the
costs of releasing investigation information to
state and local law enforcement agencies, we were
provided with an estimated funding range of $75 to
$100 per request (which is an average of $87.50
per request).
According to Defense Security Service officials,
this funding range included the costs associated
with searching the database, retrieving the data,
reproducing the files, and paying personnel and
administrative expenses. The officials also told
us that during fiscal years 1996 through 1998,
they provided responses to 59 requests from state
and local law enforcement agencies. To calculate
the costs of providing this assistance, we
multiplied the number of requests during each
fiscal year by the average estimated cost of
responding to each request ($87.50). The results
are presented in table 2.
DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory
We requested descriptive information on the types
of assistance that the DOD Computer Forensics
Laboratory provided to state and local law
enforcement agencies in 1998, which was the first
year of its operations. More specifically, we
asked for and obtained information on (1) the
number of forensic analyses that were conducted,
(2) the number of analyses that were conducted for
state and local law enforcement, and (3) funding
data on the costs associated with providing this
assistance. Since laboratory officials were not
required to separately track their costs for
supporting state and local law enforcement, we
relied on an agency estimate that was based on
prorated staff hour and workload data.
Intelligence Systems Support Office
The Intelligence Systems Support Office has
oversight responsibility for the Gulf States
Initiative. As table 2 shows, for fiscal years
1996 through 1998, Congress appropriated $28.1
million in support of this initiative. We
reviewed funding data provided to us by officials
at the Intelligence Systems Support Office.
According to the officials, all appropriated
amounts were fully obligated during the respective
fiscal years.
Joint Task Force Six
Joint Task Force Six officials provided us with
descriptions of the types of assistance that this
DOD component provided to state and local law
enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996
through 1998. Our review of this information and
subsequent discussions with the officials
indicated that 4 missions-of the 1,446 missions
completed during the 3 fiscal years-met our
definition of crime technology assistance. These
four missions consisted of the following three
types of crime technology assistance: (1)
communications assessment, (2) intelligence
architecture assessments, and (3) a technology
demonstration (no cost).
Military Branch Investigative Agencies
We met with responsible officials from the various
military branch (Army, Air Force, Navy, and U.S.
Marine Corps) investigative agencies. We reviewed
documents describing the organization and mission
of these agencies. Also, for each investigative
agency, we sought to obtain information on (1) the
number of investigations that were completed for
each fiscal year and (2) how many of the total
involved investigations conducted jointly with
state or local law enforcement agencies, as
indicated in table I.1.
Table I.1: Number of Cases Closed by Military
Branch Investigative Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996
Through 1998
Military branch Total Joint Joint
investigative agency closed closed cases as a
cases casesa percentage
of
total
cases
Army Criminal 21,846 2,468 11.3%
Investigation
Division
Air Force Office of 13,203 N/A N/A
Special
Investigationsb
Naval Criminal 31,213 3,677 11.8
Investigative
Service
Marine Corps N/A N/A N/A
Criminal
Investigation
Divisionc
Total 66,262 d N/A
Legend: N/A = Not available.
aA joint case is one with a military interest and,
thus, a military branch component jointly
participated with a state or local law enforcement
agency in investigating the case.
bAir Force officials indicated that their database
was unable to separately identify closed cases
that involved joint investigations with state or
local law enforcement. However, the Air Force
officials did identify one instance (in 1997)
wherein the Air Force assisted Prince George's
County, MD, by enhancing the quality of an
audiotape used as evidence in a homicide
investigation.
cMarine Corps officials told us that they do not
track jointly conducted investigations with state
or local law enforcement agencies. Rather, the
Marine Corps' interests in applicable cases are
handled by the Naval Criminal Investigative
Service and included in their total cases.
dTotal joint closed cases could not be determined
because the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations does not separately identify these
data.
Source: GAO summary of data provided by DOD
components.
In addition to working jointly with state or local
enforcement agencies on selected cases, the Navy
also provided relevant technical training. For
this type of technology-related assistance, the
Navy provided us cost estimates that were based on
(1) the number of state and local personnel
trained and (2) training program budgets.
National Guard Bureau
Counterdrug Training
On the basis of information provided by the
National Guard Bureau and review of mission-
related and other documents, including course
descriptions, we determined that two of the
National Guard Bureau's three counterdrug training
locations in operation during fiscal years 1996
through 1998, provided courses that met our
definition of crime technology assistance. For
the relevant courses, National Guard Bureau
officials calculated funding amounts that were
based on (1) the number of state and local law
enforcement personnel trained and (2) instructor
pay and allowances.
Other Training
We obtained descriptive information and estimated
funding data on two training courses offered by
the U.S. Army Military Police School's Advanced
Law Enforcement Training Division (Fort Leonard
Wood, MO)-(1) Counterdrug Investigations and (2)
Basic Analytical Investigative Techniques. Both
courses covered crime technology-related topics
and were made available to state and local law
enforcement agencies. U.S. Army Military Police
School officials provided us with estimated
funding data for these two courses that were based
on (1) the number of state and local law
enforcement personnel trained and (2) prorated
operating budgets.
Scope and Methodology Regarding In-Kind Transfers
In interviewing DOD officials and reviewing
applicable documents, we determined that the
following two DOD components made in-kind
transfers of crime technology-related equipment to
state and local law enforcement during fiscal
years 1996 through 1998: (1) the Defense
Information Systems Agency and (2) the Defense
Logistics Agency.
Defense Information Systems Agency
The Defense Information Systems Agency transferred
the following two automated information systems to
state or local law enforcement: (1) the Regional
Police Information System and (2) the Southwest
Border States Anti-Drug Information System. For
each of these systems, the Defense Information
Systems Agency provided us with information on the
funding amounts obligated annually for the 3-year
period covered by our study.
Defense Logistics Agency
We worked with Defense Logistics Agency officials
to identify which of the federal supply classes
(639 classes) possibly met our definition of crime
technology assistance. We determined that 20 of
the federal supply classes contained equipment
that met the definition. Of these 20 federal
supply classes, 9 involved various types of
automated data processing equipment or components.
For funding presentation purposes, we combined
these nine classes into a single line item. Thus,
table 3 presents funding data for this combined
line item and for the other 11 federal supply
classes. The funding amounts shown in the table
are based on original acquisition costs.
Scope and Methodology Regarding Research and
Development
To obtain information about DOD's research and
development projects that may have indirectly
benefited state and local law enforcement during
fiscal years 1996 through 1998, we contacted (1)
the Counterdrug Technology Development Program
Office and (2) the Office of Special Operations
and Low-Intensity Conflict. We obtained
descriptive information on (1) the types of
technologies that these offices developed and (2)
examples of related crime-fighting products that
had subsequently become commercially available to
all levels of law enforcement.
We did not attempt to identify all relevant
examples nor to quantify the costs associated with
specific products because DOD's research and
development efforts primarily and directly support
federal agency needs rather than those of state
and local law enforcement. Also, (1) any spin-off
benefits to state and local law enforcement may
not occur until years after federal research and
development funds are expended and (2) the
acquisition of commercially available products
generally is dependent on state and local law
enforcement agencies' own budgets.
Data Accuracy and Reliability
Generally, we relied on funding information that
DOD officials provided to us. Since DOD
accounting systems are not required to and
typically do not specifically track crime
technology assistance, officials used various
methods to estimate the amounts of such assistance
provided to state and local law enforcement. We
did not independently verify the accuracy or
reliability of the funding data provided by DOD
officials. However, to help ensure the overall
quality of the funding data, we contacted DOD
officials to clarify the funding data when needed.
In addition to this, we
ú reviewed corresponding fiscal year
authorization and appropriation legislation and
ú obtained information on and reviewed the
processes used by agency officials to calculate
the estimated amounts of crime technology
assistance.
_______________________________
1 Crime Technology: Federal Assistance to State
and Local Law Enforcement (GAO/GGD-99-101, June 7,
1999).
2 P.L. 105-251 (Oct. 9, 1998).
3 The one exception involves courses at two of the
National Guard's three counterdrug training
locations in operation during fiscal years 1996
through 1998. We considered these courses to be
"support services."
Appendix II
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 24GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and L
ocal Law Enforcement Agencies
GAO Contacts
Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777
Danny R. Burton, (214) 777-5700
Acknowledgments
In addition to those named above, Chan My J.
Battcher, Denise M. Fantone, William M. Solis, and
Geoffrey R. Hamilton made key contributions to
this report.
*** End of Document ***